"article 49 of the fourth geneva convention”.- Israels illegal theft of west bank land and sponsoring of thug settlers is illegal

The UN International Court of Justice recognized Israel as an occupier of the Palestinian territories.

Wow. Now Israel is going to be cut off from SWIFT, banned from trading with them, have their cards blocked worldwide, ban Israeli athletes from competing, and impose a myriad of other sanctions.
What do you mean, “No, that's different”?
 
By all means.
The subject of this particular discussion was: Show me the treaty or international agreement which defines Gaza and the West Bank as being part of Israel.

This walks you through the legal argument step-by-step. Let me know where you think the legal argument breaks down and provide an alternate legal argument.

Treaty of Lausanne: Article 16. Ottoman Empire/Turkey renounces all claims to the territory and leaves the future of these territories to the "parties concerned".

Covenant of the League of Nations: Article 22. Establishes the intent and goals of the Mandatory system to lead to independent nations able to "stand alone", with specific reference to the territories formally renounced by Turkey.

UN Charter: Article 1.2 Establishes in law the principle of self-determination.

Mandate for Palestine: Preamble; Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11. Establishes the right of the Jewish people (only the Jewish people) to re-constitute their national homeland (nation) as the self-governing body in the territory of the Mandate.

The universal customary international law concept of uti posseditis juris which asserts that when a new State is formed without a treaty to delineate boundaries, the boundaries of the former administrative unit become the boundaries of the new State.

Declaration of Independence, State of Israel. Establishes Israel as an independent State, in accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Israel and Jordan General Armistice Agreement, 1949: Article 2. Establishes that the Armistice Demarcation Line will not prejudice the rights, claims, or positions of either party, and exist in response to military considerations exclusively.

Israel and Egypt General Armistice Agreement, 1949: Article 5. Establishes that the Demarcation Line shall not be construed as a political boundary and will not prejudice the rights, claims, or positions of either party.

UNGA Resolution 273. Confirms Israel's status as a member State and able to carry out its obligations as a State.

Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 1979. Establishes the international border between Israel and Egypt (note location).

Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 1994. Establishes the international border between Israel and Jordan (note location).

Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the Status of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, 1995. Establishes the right of Israel to negotiate with a non-government non-state representative (note status) for a final boundary agreement, confirming the lack of such an existing boundary, and the right of Israel to negotiate its territorial integrity.
 
The subject of this particular discussion was: Show me the treaty or international agreement which defines Gaza and the West Bank as being part of Israel.

This walks you through the legal argument step-by-step. Let me know where you think the legal argument breaks down and provide an alternate legal argument.

Treaty of Lausanne: Article 16. Ottoman Empire/Turkey renounces all claims to the territory and leaves the future of these territories to the "parties concerned".

Covenant of the League of Nations: Article 22. Establishes the intent and goals of the Mandatory system to lead to independent nations able to "stand alone", with specific reference to the territories formally renounced by Turkey.

UN Charter: Article 1.2 Establishes in law the principle of self-determination.

Mandate for Palestine: Preamble; Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11. Establishes the right of the Jewish people (only the Jewish people) to re-constitute their national homeland (nation) as the self-governing body in the territory of the Mandate.

The universal customary international law concept of uti posseditis juris which asserts that when a new State is formed without a treaty to delineate boundaries, the boundaries of the former administrative unit become the boundaries of the new State.

Declaration of Independence, State of Israel. Establishes Israel as an independent State, in accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Israel and Jordan General Armistice Agreement, 1949: Article 2. Establishes that the Armistice Demarcation Line will not prejudice the rights, claims, or positions of either party, and exist in response to military considerations exclusively.

Israel and Egypt General Armistice Agreement, 1949: Article 5. Establishes that the Demarcation Line shall not be construed as a political boundary and will not prejudice the rights, claims, or positions of either party.

UNGA Resolution 273. Confirms Israel's status as a member State and able to carry out its obligations as a State.

Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 1979. Establishes the international border between Israel and Egypt (note location).

Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 1994. Establishes the international border between Israel and Jordan (note location).

Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the Status of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, 1995. Establishes the right of Israel to negotiate with a non-government non-state representative (note status) for a final boundary agreement, confirming the lack of such an existing boundary, and the right of Israel to negotiate its territorial integrity.
Well you'll just have to wait, maybe if you work hard you can get elected to the ICJ then show them all how its done.
 
Well you'll just have to wait, maybe if you work hard you can get elected to the ICJ then show them all how its done.
Does this mean you aren't going to reply to the claims themselves, when you don't have the excuse of "killing the messenger"?
 
Does this mean you aren't going to reply to the claims themselves, when you don't have the excuse of "killing the messenger"?
What do you mean "reply to the claims"? One replies to questions, not claims. Did you ask me something? all I can see is diatribe the gospel according to Zion.
 
What do you mean "reply to the claims"? One replies to questions, not claims. Did you ask me something? all I can see is diatribe the gospel according to Zion.
Well, we were discussing that you dismiss claims without even reading them. Willful ignorance is not a good look.
 
Well, we were discussing that you dismiss claims without even reading them. Willful ignorance is not a good look.
But I'm not even remotely interested in your beliefs about international law, no matter how deeply committed to them you might be.

The ICJ has published it's advisory opinion and most countries are accepting it as a very reasonable opinion, even the EU, it is just the United States that is acting like a weakling, doing the bidding of the deranged Zionist regime, even the take down of the WTC in Sept 11 didn't wake the US up.

So I'm not interested in debating your interpretation of law, it has no relevance, the Judges have spoken, lets move on.
 
So I'm not interested in debating your interpretation of law, it has no relevance, the Judges have spoken, lets move on.
Vice-President Sebutinde's dissenting opinion demonstrates that this is hardly only my interpretation of law.

She writes:

63. In my respectful view, the approach taken by the majority in rendering the Advisory Opinion is fundamentally flawed as it fails to consider important legal principles and propositions in international law, governing the Israeli-Palestinian question. The Court’s analysis of the status of the territories recaptured by Israel in 1967 and any legal pronouncements on the status of those territories, should have been guided by the following principles of international law.

In addition to the principles of equality between States; equal application of the law; State consent to the application of law; and distinguishing law from policy, she writes:

D. Borders, sovereignty, and precise scope of territorial claims cannot be presumed
67. The questions of Israel’s alleged occupation of certain Palestinian territories since 1967, or of its annexation of foreign territory, or of the alleged infringement of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, are all questions that cannot be answered without first determining the territorial scope (i.e. borders) of the State of Israel, a critical matter regarding which the Court has not received arguments or evidence...


The claim she makes here is that one can not presume "guilt" and impose a sentence without hearing the arguments and evidence upon which that "guilt" is based. It is a legal failing which she correctly calls attention to. (Don't "everyone knows" me. That is not how the law works. The law requires proper procedure.)

69. General Assembly resolution 77/247 refers to the West Bank, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip as “Palestinian territory”. The resolution appears to assume that sovereign rights to this area rest exclusively with the Palestinian people. It disregards any potential claims the State of Israel and the Jewish people may have with respect to some of these areas...
...As the Court explained in the Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali case, the doctrine ensures that: “By becoming independent, [the] new State acquires sovereignty with the territorial base and boundaries left to it by the [administrative boundaries of the] colonial power . . . [The principle of uti possidetis juris] applies to the State as it is [at that moment of independence], i.e., to the ‘photograph’ of the territorial situation then existing. The principle of uti possidetis [juris] freezes the territorial title; it stops the clock”

72. As stated above, when Britain terminated its stewardship over what was left of the Mandate for Palestine in 194777, according to the principle of uti possidetis juris, the administrative boundaries of the Mandate for Palestine on 14 May 1948 became the borders of the independent State of Israel (the only State to emerge from Mandatory Palestine at the time of Britain’s withdrawal)...



Vice-President Sebutinde's dissenting opinion can be found here.
 

Well we all knew it. How long will the west tolerate these bandits and ttheir theft. It isnt as if they even try and hide it.

Israel puts jewish people at risk. Now and forever. Look at your grandchildren and their children. Executed because of the larceny of these extremists.
the Arabs should have been good neighbors to the Israelis and Zionists.
 
The subject of this particular discussion was: Show me the treaty or international agreement which defines Gaza and the West Bank as being part of Israel.

This walks you through the legal argument step-by-step. Let me know where you think the legal argument breaks down and provide an alternate legal argument.

Treaty of Lausanne: Article 16. Ottoman Empire/Turkey renounces all claims to the territory and leaves the future of these territories to the "parties concerned".

Covenant of the League of Nations: Article 22. Establishes the intent and goals of the Mandatory system to lead to independent nations able to "stand alone", with specific reference to the territories formally renounced by Turkey.

UN Charter: Article 1.2 Establishes in law the principle of self-determination.

Mandate for Palestine: Preamble; Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11. Establishes the right of the Jewish people (only the Jewish people) to re-constitute their national homeland (nation) as the self-governing body in the territory of the Mandate.

The universal customary international law concept of uti posseditis juris which asserts that when a new State is formed without a treaty to delineate boundaries, the boundaries of the former administrative unit become the boundaries of the new State.

Declaration of Independence, State of Israel. Establishes Israel as an independent State, in accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Israel and Jordan General Armistice Agreement, 1949: Article 2. Establishes that the Armistice Demarcation Line will not prejudice the rights, claims, or positions of either party, and exist in response to military considerations exclusively.

Israel and Egypt General Armistice Agreement, 1949: Article 5. Establishes that the Demarcation Line shall not be construed as a political boundary and will not prejudice the rights, claims, or positions of either party.

UNGA Resolution 273. Confirms Israel's status as a member State and able to carry out its obligations as a State.

Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 1979. Establishes the international border between Israel and Egypt (note location).

Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 1994. Establishes the international border between Israel and Jordan (note location).

Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the Status of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, 1995. Establishes the right of Israel to negotiate with a non-government non-state representative (note status) for a final boundary agreement, confirming the lack of such an existing boundary, and the right of Israel to negotiate its territorial integrity.
now you're quoting zionists and their supporters, past and present.
that's not an objective discussion now is it?
 
Last edited:
there's at least 2 sides to every conflict between nations, folks.
try to think of them as a collection of N-sided cubes, with different artwork on each side of each cube, much like you find in tarot (see this Tarot cardgame - 191 decks and 9 reading types for a good & free example).

my point here is : each side of such a cube has a different story to tell.
and to evaluate the situation as a whole, all stories should be evaluated,
without prejudice or feelings of hate or despair.
instead, use logic and some kind of publicly defensible value system.

like how Hamas indoctrinates young kids to accept death at any age; despicable, if you ask me.
but i'm willing to listen to Hamas representatives on why they think that to be necessary or even acceptable behavior from adults towards children who are in their care, without ever insulting these representatives...
 
Last edited:
the Arabs should have been good neighbors to the Israelis and Zionists.

Once upon a time there were no Zionists in Palestine and when they began to arrive in the 1920s they mutated into militant Zionists. These groups persecuted Arabs and Jews - so called Yishuv.

Zionism is alien to Jewish culture, hardly any Jews cared for it, for thousands of years it did not exist.

Zionism began in Europe, the educated intellectual Jews, secular Jews too for the most part. It is now a nationalist political ideology whereas Judaism is not, understand Zionism is not really Jewish, it did not emerge from Jewish culture or Jewish society, it emerged from the industrialized and intellectual landscape of Europe coupled with enlightened politically aware Jews.

So from the outset it is an ideology at odds with Arabs and Jews, it was hostile, disruptive and rapacious to both cultures.

So there is no sense in arguing "Arabs should have been good neighbors to the Israelis and Zionists" because Arabs and Jews WERE neighbors in the region and had been for centuries, there was no huge Jewish push for nationalism among Jews in Palestine it is an alien nationalist ideology that was nurtured by the British and imported into Palestine and ever since has been creating misery and pain for millions of people, Arabs and Jews.

It's like saying Jews should have been good neighbors to the Germans and Nazis, that is how absurd the statement appears to any serious student of Israeli political history.

Now, an aside, take a look the Wikipedia article "Zionism" it has been getting edited almost daily, since early October, the article differs dramatically from what it was in late 2023, it is being massaged to distort the truth.

Look, here are two versions of the article, on the left is before Oct 7th and on the right is today's latest version.

Prior to Oct 7th it is described as pertaining to a "Jewish homeland" that's been updated now to say "Jewish state in Palestine".

Well anyone who knows their history will tell you that Zionism was never about creating a state in Palestine, that is NOT what was envisaged or discussed by the early Zionist intellectuals in Europe, the article is WRONG now, whereas it was CORRECT before.

So understand that what the Israeli right wing xenophobes and their supporters mean by "Zionism" is not the truth, they have created a Jew supremacist nationalist ideology and deceitfully referred to that as "Zionism".

They want YOU to think that Zionism was always about what it is today, was always about a Jewish state, focused on Jews, but that's a lie.

This is why Noam Chomsky says "I was a Zionist in the 1930s but I'm not a Zionist today, not because I've changed but because the meaning of the word has been changed".

They are liars, that's what they do, the lie and deceive and kill, and expel and destroy and pillage.

Their, I've given you valuable knowledge, you can use it to go forward and discern further truths or you can dismiss it as an idle post by some anti-Zionist nut - that's your choice, do with it what you will.
 
Last edited:
like how Hamas indoctrinates young kids to accept death at any age; despicable, if you ask me.
but i'm willing to listen to Hamas representatives on why they think that to be necessary or even acceptable behavior from adults towards children who are in their care, without ever insulting these representatives...
The militant Zionists did EXACTLY this, if you want to see the evidence - British intelligence records - just ask.
 
Once upon a time there were no Zionists in Palestine and when they began to arrive in the 1920s they mutated into militant Zionists. These groups persecuted Arabs and Jews - so called Yishuv.

Zionism is alien to Jewish culture, hardly any Jews cared for it, for thousands of years it did not exist.

Zionism began in Europe, the educated intellectual Jews, secular Jews too for the most part. It is now a nationalist political ideology whereas Judaism is not, understand Zionism is not really Jewish, it did not emerge from Jewish culture or Jewish society, it emerged from the industrialized and intellectual landscape of Europe coupled with enlightened politically aware Jews.

So from the outset it is an ideology at odds with Arabs and Jews, it was hostile, disruptive and rapacious to both cultures.

So there is no sense in arguing "Arabs should have been good neighbors to the Israelis and Zionists" because Arabs and Jews WERE neighbors in the region and had been for centuries, there was no huge Jewish push for nationalism among Jews in Palestine it is an alien nationalist ideology that was nurtured by the British and imported into Palestine and ever since has been creating misery and pain for millions of people, Arabs and Jews.
funny, i thought they got it from their Torah.

It's like saying Jews should have been good neighbors to the Germans and Nazis, that is how absurd the statement appears to any serious student of Israeli political history.
no, the Nazi regime was truly genocidal, and the world was right to stop it.
i don't see the Zionists or Israelis pulling any genocide (attempts).

Now, an aside, take a look the Wikipedia article "Zionism" it has been getting edited almost daily, since early October, the article differs dramatically from what it was in late 2023, it is being massaged to distort the truth.

Look, here are two versions of the article, on the left is before Oct 7th and on the right is today's latest version.

Prior to Oct 7th it is described as pertaining to a "Jewish homeland" that's been updated now to say "Jewish state in Palestine".

Well anyone who knows their history will tell you that Zionism was never about creating a state in Palestine, that is NOT what was envisaged or discussed by the early Zionist intellectuals in Europe, the article is WRONG now, whereas it was CORRECT before.

So understand that what the Israeli right wing xenophobes and their supporters mean by "Zionism" is not the truth, they have created a Jew supremacist nationalist ideology and deceitfully referred to that as "Zionism".

They want YOU to think that Zionism was always about what it is today, was always about a Jewish state, focused on Jews, but that's a lie.

This is why Noam Chomsky says "I was a Zionist in the 1930s but I'm not a Zionist today, not because I've changed but because the meaning of the word has been changed".

They are liars, that's what they do, the lie and deceive and kill, and expel and destroy and pillage.

Their, I've given you valuable knowledge, you can use it to go forward and discern further truths or you can dismiss it as an idle post by some anti-Zionist nut - that's your choice, do with it what you will.
i would say you're quick to judge people of genocide.
 
Those that resist the Zionist's genocide have always been fully aware that the law is on their side.
The UN maybe

But not God

Israel will exist for as long as the Creator wants it to, whether lib/progressives like it or not
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom